Why a Sacrifice Must Be Offered For Its Own Sake

From where do we know that we require slaughtering for its own sake? Because Scripture says, "And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings" - that the slaughter be for the sake of peace-offerings. But perhaps this is merely their name? From the fact that it is written "the one who offers the blood of the peace-offerings," "the one who dashes the blood of the peace-offerings" (Leviticus 7:14), and it does not write "sacrifice," whereas here it does write "sacrifice" - learn from it that the slaughter must be for the sake of peace-offerings. We have found this for slaughter; from where do we learn the other services? And if you say, let us learn from slaughter - what of slaughter, which is disqualified when not done for the sake of those who eat the Passover-offering? Rather Scripture says, "the one who offers the blood of the peace-offerings" - that the receiving of the blood be for the sake of peace-offerings. Let the Merciful One write it regarding receiving and let us learn slaughter from all of them - because one could refute: what of receiving, which is disqualified when performed by a non-priest? We have found slaughter and receiving; from where do we learn the dashing of blood? And if you say, let us learn from these - what of these, which require the north and apply to the inner sin-offering? Rather Scripture says, "the one who dashes the blood of the peace-offerings" - that the dashing be for the sake of peace-offerings. We have found all of these; from where do we learn the carrying? And if you say, let us learn from all of them - what of all of them, which are services that cannot be dispensed with, whereas carrying can be dispensed with? Rather Scripture says, "and the priest shall offer the whole," and the master said this is the carrying of the limbs to the ramp; and it was taught, "and the sons of Aaron shall offer the blood" - this is the receiving of the blood. Carrying it is, yet Scripture expressed it in the language of receiving, to say that carrying is not excluded from the category of receiving. We have found a change of sanctity; from where do we learn a change of owners? Scripture says, "and the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings" - that the slaughter be for the sake of the thanksgiving-offering, for the sake of peace-offerings; if it is not needed for a change of sanctity, which is derived elsewhere, apply it to a change of owners. This verse comes for this purpose - but it is needed for what was taught: "and the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings." Abba Chanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer said it comes to teach about a thanksgiving-offering that one slaughtered for the sake of peace-offerings, that it is valid, while peace-offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a thanksgiving-offering are invalid. What is the difference between this and that? A thanksgiving-offering is called peace-offerings, but peace-offerings are not called a thanksgiving-offering. Rather Rava said, it is derived from the ram of the Nazirite, as it is written, "and he shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the LORD" (Numbers 6:17) - that the slaughter be for the sake of peace-offerings; if it is not needed for a change of sanctity, apply it to a change of owners. We have found the Nazirite's ram; from where do we learn the rest of the peace-offerings? And if you say, let us learn from the Nazirite - what of the Nazirite's ram, which has other moneys with it? If so, let it write "his peace-offerings"; what is "peace-offerings"? To include all peace-offerings. We have found peace-offerings; from where do we learn the rest of the holy offerings? And if you say, let us learn from peace-offerings - what of peace-offerings, which require laying-on of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh? Rather Scripture says, "This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering" and so on (Leviticus 7:37) - they are likened to peace-offerings: just as peace-offerings, whether by change of sanctity or by change of owners, we require it for its own sake, so all, whether by change of owners or by change of sanctity, we require it for its own sake. One might say, where one slaughtered them not for their own sake they should be disqualified; Scripture says, "that which goes out of your lips you shall keep... a freewill offering" (Deuteronomy 23:24) - it is a vow; rather, if you did as you vowed it is a vow, and if not it shall be a freewill gift. And it was necessary to write "that which goes out of your lips," and necessary to write "This is the law," for had the Merciful One written only "that which goes out of your lips" I would say I do not know in what manner; so the Merciful One wrote "This is the law." And had the Merciful One written only "This is the law" I would say they should be disqualified; so the Merciful One wrote "that which goes out of your lips." "The herd" - to include the eleventh as a peace-offering. One might think I should include the ninth; you said: does sanctity sanctify before it or after it? You must say it sanctifies after it. "The herd" - to include the eleventh. "Of the herd" - to exclude the ninth. And what did you see to include the eleventh and exclude the ninth? After Scripture included and excluded: when does consecration produce a substitute, before it or after it? You must say after it; I include the eleventh, which is after the consecration, and I exclude the ninth, which is before the consecration. The individual brings peace-offerings as a freewill gift, but the community does not bring peace-offerings as a freewill gift. Is this not a logical argument? An animal burnt-offering comes by vow and freewill gift, and peace-offerings come by vow and freewill gift; just as the animal burnt-offering comes as a communal freewill gift, so peace-offerings, which come by vow and freewill gift, should come as a communal freewill gift. The meal-offering will prove otherwise, for it comes by vow and freewill gift yet does not come as a communal freewill gift. No: if you said this of the meal-offering, which does not come as a freewill gift of two partners, will you say it of peace-offerings, which do come as a freewill gift of two partners? The bird burnt-offering will prove otherwise, for it comes as a freewill gift of two yet does not come as a communal freewill gift. No: if you said this of the bird burnt-offering, which does not come as a communal obligation, will you say it of peace-offerings, which do come as a communal obligation; since they come as a communal obligation, let them come as a communal freewill gift? Scripture teaches "it" - the individual brings peace-offerings as a freewill gift, and the community does not bring peace-offerings as a freewill gift.